011 932 884 6 # 



*• 



E 416 



^ .082 SPEECH ^ 

* Copy 1 ^ ^ \ 



vv^^ 



MR. GT ASHMUN.OF MASSACHUSETTS, 



On the Revolution in France, and Emancipation in its Colonic}^, r 

,_^^„__^___ .'W^- 

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. OF THE UNITED STATES.' 



On MoNDAT, April 3d, Mr. Cummins, of Ohio, offered the following resoUitions : 

Resolved, That it becomes the people of the United States to rejoice tnat the sentiment of self-gov- 
ernment is commending itself to the favorable consideration and adoption of the intelligent and think- 
ing men of all intelligent nations. 

Resolved, That the" only legitimate source of political power is the will of the people, and the only 
rishtful end of its exercise their good. 

^Resolved, That we sincerely hope that down trodden humanity may succeed in breaking down all 
forms of tyranny and oppression, and ift the rstablishment of free and national governments for the 
good of the governed, and not for the aggrandizement of those who govern. 

Resolved, That we tender our warmest sympathies to the people of France and Italy in their present 
struggle for reform, and sincerely hope they may succeed in establishing free and constitutional gov- 
ernments, emanating from, and based upon, the will of the governed, suited to their wants and condi- 
tion, and such as will secure to them liberty and safety. 

Resolved, That we fender our sympathy and hopes of success to every people who are seeking to 
establish for themselves free and national governments, and that whatever of blood and treasure may 
be shed or spent in a struggle of the oppressed against the oppressor, is to be charged to the unjust 
resistance of the oppressor'^ who strives to hold and exercise the rights of the people, usuiyed against 
their will, and exercised tor the benetlt of the few and the oppression of the many; and not to the people, 
who seek only to regain and exercise their natural rights in such manner as will best secure and pro- 
mote their own happiness and safety. 

Mr. AsHMUN moved to amend the fourth resolution by inserting at the end thereof the following: 

" And we especially see an encouraging earnest of their success in the decree which pledges the 
said Government of France to early "measures for the immediate emancipation of all slaves in their 
colonies." 

Mr. ScHENCK suggested, as an amendment to the amendment, to add the following : 

" Recognising as we do that cardinal republican principle, that there shall be neither .slavery nor in" 
voluntary servitude, except for crime." 

Mr. AsHMUN accepted this as a modification of his own amendment. 

A debate ensued, in which this proposition was commented on by Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Haskell, 
Mr. GiDDiNGs, Mr. Doer, and Mr. Bayly, of Virginia. The latter gentleman was very violent in 
his denunciations of the amendment, and its authors, and said that it was " a libel and an insult to 
the republican States of the South." The debate lasted until near evening, when Mr. A. obtained 
the floor to reply, but a disposition to adjourn being manifested, he movqd it, and the House adjourn- 
ed. On the following day, and on several subsequent days, an effort was made by Mr. A. and others 
to have the subject resumed ; but, under the rules, there was no opportunity for taking it up again 
until Monday, April 10, when the House proceeded to consider the following resolutions, which had, 
in the mean time, come from the Senate : 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Slates of ^Imerica in Congress assem- 
bled. That, in the name and behalf of the American people, the congratulations of Congress are 
hereby tendered to the people of France upon their succes.s in their recent efforts to consolidate liberty, 
by embodying its principles in a republican form of government. 

Resolved, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, requested to transmit this 
resolution to the American minister at Paris, with instructions to present it to the French Government 
Mr. ASHMUN, having obtained the floor, said : 

Mr. Speaker: I avail myself of the earliest opportunity to address the House 
upon this subject. When, some days since, a series of resolutions upon the same 
topic were presented by the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Cummins,) that gentleman 

J. h. G. S. Gideon, Printers. 



2 ^^''^ ' \ 

stated thatHhey were drawn by himself, although they bore every mark of having 
been cut from a newspaper. 

Mr, Cummins here explained that they were, in fact, drawn by him, and had 
been once before offered to the House unsuccessfully, and in that way had got into 
the new spaper by the agency of the reporter. 

Mr. AsHMUN. I am entirely satisfied with the gentleman's explanation, and have 
no intention or desire to spend a moment's breath upon that point. But the source 
from which they came, and the manner of their presentation, sprung upon the 
House as they had been, not coming from any standing committee, nor from a gen- 
tleman at the head of any commit:ee; all this attracted my attention, as well as that 
of the gentleman from Virginia, who had remarked upon it, and I at that time felt 
at liberty to offer an amendment calculated to test the sincerity of the movers, in the 
principles contained in them. 

The resolutions which are now under consideration have come to us in a different 
manner. They come from the Senate; another''branch of this Government, in the 
usual and regular form of parliamentary proceedings, and are not, therefore, liable 
to the criticism of the gentleman from Virginia upon tho-se offered some days ago. 
They are before us under differenf'circumstances, and are entitled to a more re- 
spectful consideration. On tl% previous OQcasion, to which I refer, they did not 
come from the Senate; nor AverO; they based upon any Executive recommendation, 
nor had they the consideration or sanction of the Committee of Foreign Relations, 
from which such resolu^ons should properly emanate. I therefore felt entirely at 
liberty to offer the amendment, which brought upon me the successive comments of 
several gentlemen, and the excessive denunciation of the member from Virginia, 
(Mr. Bayly.) But for the course which they deemed proper to take I should have 
remained silent. I should have been quite content to have had a vote taken upon 
my amendment, or upon the proposition to refer the whole subject to the Commit- 
tee on Foreign Affairs, which could report them back to the House in such form as 
they, in their judgment, might think advisable, and in that form I am not sure that 
I should have interposed any active objection to them; nor do I intend to do it to 
those which are now under consideration. But I am free to say, nevertheless, that, 
in my judgment, even these are somewhat premature. 

There is no man who will more gladly than myself rejoice to see a republican 
form of government successfully established in France. No man on this floor, or 
in this nation, will more cheerfully mingle his voice in the shout that shall go up at 
the spread of freedom — not in France alone, but all dN'cr the world! On every 
quarter of the globe, on every continent, and on every island, I desire to see civil 
and political liberty triumphant; and when, by their exertions, the oppressed of any 
land shall have asserted their rights and achieved their freedom, I will be amono^ 
the foremost to express my most cordial congratulations. But, I confess, I objected 
to the resolutions of the gentleman from Ohio the other day, and 1 have great hesi- 
tation to concur in the proceedings coatemi)lated to-day, because France has not 
yet achieved republican Ubcrty. We have been told that a republican government 
has been formed in France; that it has ahead}' been consummated, and is now 
existing. And the President of the Uniied States, in tlie message which he has 
sent us, formally announces the fact that "France has been suddenly transformed into 
a republic!" A republic! Sir, our Executive has singular ideas of what constitutes a 
republican government. And, indeed, his conduct as President of our own Consti- 
tutional Government, in repeated usurpations of powers which do not belong to him, 
has long led me to doubt whether he understands the true sjjirit of republicanism. 
Sir, what is the present government of France? And how was it estal)lislied? Where 
is the charter? Where is the constitution? Every body who has attended to the 
history of the recent revolution, knows that the present government was created by 
the irrnj)tion of an armed mob into the Chamber of Deputies, breaking up its de- 
liberations. In the confusion and terror wliich then ensued, no deliberation or dis- 
cussion could be had. Terror was triumphant; and, in the n)idst of the uproar, one 



of the soldiers presented himself to the mingled mass, musket in hand and bayonet 
fixed, A sheet of paper was produced, upon which Avere written sundry names. 
The bayonet transfixed the paper and held it up; when, with a shout, the present 
Provisional Government was proclaimed. Such is the history of the transaction, 
and such is the charter of France at this moment. It is a bayonet government. It 
is not a republican government. It was not established by the exercise 'of any con- 
stitutional rights or liberty; and it guarantees none. The power of France is con- 
trolled by several highly respectable gentlemen; but where is the charter that de- 
fines or limits their power? It does not exist. On the"" contrary, the public papers 
of this morning have brought us their declaration, in a document issued by the 
Minister of the Interior, that they are sovereign and independent, and their own 
discretion is their only limit and-guide. This is the instruction of M. RoUin to the 

commissioners of elections: n 

\ 
"What are your powers? They are tmlmited. Agent of a revolutionary authority, j/ott are revo- 
lutionm-y also. The victory of the people, has imposed upon you the duty of getting your work pro- 
clairtied and consolidated. For the accomplishment of liuH task you are invested wiih its_sovereignty ; 
yo^^ take orders only from i/oitr conscience; you are to act £;p, cu'cums.tances may demand for the public 
safety." g ■ 

This is the government which our own President, calls a republican one! Why, — 
the same power which put these gentlemen in their places a few weeks ago, may 
displace them at any moment. 1 deny, therefore, the as^rtion that France has 
achieved a republican government. Firance is quiet now to all appearance, and I 
give all due consideration to this fact. She seems to have acquiesced in this Provisional 
Government. But it is no less a despotism; and a despotism of a dozen is as ter- 
rible and as much to be dreaded, as a despotism of one. It is true that an election has 
been ordered for a national convention, for the purpose of forming a constitution, and 
yesterday, the 9th of April, (being Sunday,) Avas the day fixed for it to take place. If 
it shall have passed off quietly, and if the nine liundred gentlemen elect shall assemble 
and peaceably organize a republican government, which gives security to life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness, then, indeed, we shall have cause for congratulations. 
But I confess that my fears are greater than my hopes. I see constituting the Pro- 
visional Government gentlemen, many of whom have high characters for talents, 
wisdom, and purity of purpose; but there are elements at work which, I fear, they can 
neither control nor resist. And, aside from their own internal difficulties in the pre- 
sent state of the world, a commercial nation like France, with heavy public debts, 
expensive establishments, and complex relations with other powers, requires the ex- 
ercise of the greatest prudence and caution. Whether a raw democracy, thus sud- 
denly elevated to unaccustomed powers, with whatever honesty of intention, is 
likely so to administer aflairs as to preserve the peace, uphold national credit, reo-u- 
late the finances, and manage safely the commercial interests, is a problem which 
events must solve. I cannot conceal my apprehensions, while I express my most 
profound hopes that the revolution which has startled the world into admiration, may 
not be the shadow of coming events too terrible, almost, for contemplation. 

But, Mr. Speaker, in the midst of this eagerness for high sounding expressions of 
rejoicing at the prospective establishment of republican governments in Europe, a 
painful contrast presents itself irresistibly to my mind. It is, that, at the very mo- 
ment when our people, all over the land, are, as if with one voice, hailing with so ' 
much enthusiasm the birth of a new republic in Europe, Ave, the same people, are 
wih the armed heel of war treading out the existence of a sister Republic upon our oAvn 
continent! And the doubt may well suggest itself, Avhether Ave are not rather pro- 
fessing than practising republicans. But I have no desire to dAvell upon this point, 
■or to do more than give it this passing notice. 

NoAV — as to the resolutions immediately before us, if they are pressed, I am in- 
clined to vote for them, or at least not to embarrass the action of the House upon them. 
If they are to pass at all, it should be done, not only cheerfully, but with as much 
•unanimity as possible, and I am not disposed to do anything which shall impair the 



oracefulness of the proceeding; nor shall I at this time propose the amendment^ 
which I did the other day propose to the resolutions of the gentleman from Ohio. 

As, however, that amendment was the cause of considerable debate, and as this 
is the first moment when I have had an opportunity to speak upon it, I shall avail 
myself of it to make some remarks in reply to what has been said, and especially to 
the attack which was made upon me by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Bayly.) 
My amendmei.t was in the following words: 

" And we especially see an encouraging; earnest of their success in the decree which pledges the 
Government of France to early measures t'or the immediate emancipation of all slaves in their colonies; 
recognising, as we do, the cardinal republican principle that there shall be neither slavery nor invol- 
untary servitude, except for crime." 

Now, sir, let me ask, why should I not propose this amendment.'' What is there 
in it, or in the occasion, which made it either improper or ill-timed.? In what cir- 
cumstances were we placed? 

France, in the incipient stages of her revolution, had given a pledge that one of 
its earliest acts should have ir^viewthe emancipation of the slaves in her colonies: 
and that there^ as well as at home, slaver}' or involuntary servitude, except for 
crime, should no longer exist. ^ Thi» was one of the decrees of the Provisional Gov- 
ernment which our INlinister had forwarded to the President, and which the Presi- 
dent has announced to us. And, for proposing to congratulate ourselves, and the 
friends of freedom every where, upon this auspicious demonstration, 1 have been 
most unsparingly denounced by the gentleman from Virginia, in a: tone and manner 
which I must say would be better suited to his plantation than to this Hall. The- 
gentleman, in the whirlwind of his passion, in the first place, poured out his fi.erce 
wrath upon the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Giddings;) but afterwards, on finding 
that he had been directing his fire in the wrong quarter, announced that what he 
had said was to be applied to me. I instantly accepted the transfer, and promised 
to replv to it; which I shall now do, pledging myself to do it with the most perfect 
good temper, while at the same time I shall not fail to speak with the most perfect 
freedom. I claim to live under a republican government, where all arc entitled to 
equal rights and equal privileges; and, as a member of this House, I claim the right 
to propose and freely to discuss an}^ topic which may come legitimately within its ac- 
tion; and the gentleman from Virginia greatly mistakes my character if he supposes 
that either denunciation or coarse abuse can deter me from the exercise of my rights. 
I sympathize with the down-trodden humanity of France; and the expression of that 
sympathy is the exercise of a legitiinate right when resolutions like those of the 
gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Cummins,) are thrust upon us. Why — the very resolu- 
tions themselves may well be supposed to contemplate the precise feeling which is 
expressed by my amendment. The gentleman from Ohio, in his third resolution, 
ex-pressed the hope that the down-trodden humanity of France might succeed in 
breaking down all forms of tyranny and oppresaion: and what is that but a prayer 
that slavery shall cease.? Can it be possible that the gentleman from Ohio, or the- 
gentleman from Virginia, or any other man, would say that the 300,000 slaves in 
the French West India possessions are not a part of down- trodden humanity? If 
they hesitate about it, or deny it, let them learn from the historian who now seems 
to be the master spirit in the new Government of France. I desire them to listen 
to what M. Lamartine, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, has said of it in a 
well-known book which he has recently })ublished. * 

Mr. AsiixMUN here read the following extract from a work of M. de Lamartine, 
entitled "History of the Girondists," vol. 1, p. 31i: 

"San Domingo, the richest of the French colonies, was swimming in blood. France was jnmishcd 
for its egotism. The Constiiuenl Assembly had proclaimed, in principle, the liberty of the blacks, 
but in fact slaVery still existed. Two hundred thousand slaves served as human cattle to some thou- 
sands of colonists. They were bought and sold, and cut and nmimed, as if they were inanimate ob- 
jects. They were kept by speculation out of the civil law. and out of the religious law. Property, 
family, marriage, all was forbidden to them. Care was taken to degrade them as brutes. If some 
unions, furtive, or favored by cupidity, were formed amongst them, the wife and children belonged to 
ihe master. ■ They were sold separately, without luiy rtgard to the ties of nature ; all the attachments 



^v'ith which God has formed the chain of human sympathies, were rent asunder witliout commisera- 
tion." 

That, sir, was the condition of slavery in the West India Islands. I am not 
speakino- now of Virginia. Lamartine's description is the description of davery m 
the French colonies^in the West Indies. When the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. 
Cummins,) says in his resolution "that we sincerely hope that down-trodden hu- 
manity may succeed in breaking all forms of tyranny and oppression, and in the es- 
tablishment of free and national governments for the good ot the governed, and not 
for the a^o-randizement of those who govern," what does he mean? Is it not, in 
substance^what mv amendment more fully expresses .> And if the House aaopt the 
one as proper, how can they reject the other? His fourth resolution says: '-What- 
ever of blood and treasure mayb.e shed or spent in a struggle of the oppressed 
a<^ainst the oppressor, is to be changed to the unjust resistance of the' oppressor. 
When the gentleman from Virginia, (iMr. Bayly,) denounced the gentleman trom 
Ohio, (Mr. GiDDiNGS,) for referring to the emancipation of the slaves in the * I'ench 
colonies, emancioation, because when suddenly effecfed, must always occasion blood- 
shed, why did not he turn on hisown friend for Evoking blood? The gentleman turned 
his thunder on one man, yet averted it from another who had done the same thing. 
' Was it because there was a political affiliation between the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. 
CuMMi\s,) and the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Bayly,) which made it expedient 
to keep a prudent silence in that quarter? This resolution uttered the self-same voice 
wuth my amendment, and no ingenuity could pervert it to any other meaning. _ My 
amendment speaks out what the gentleman might suppose would be concealed in his 
resolution, or would rem.ain there unnoticed. i , t, 

What was the House, by the proposal of these resolutions, asked to do? lo con- 
o-ratulate France on the attempt to form a republican government. Now— when the 
charter of their new government was stuck on the point of a bayonet and handed 
about for adoption, M. de Lamartine said: 

" I propose to form a eovernment, not definitive, but provisional— a government charged, first of 
all, with the task of staunching the blood which flows, of putting a stop to civil war— a gcvernment 
which we appoint without putting aside any portion of our resentments and ot our indignaUon ; and, 
in the next place, a government on which we shall impose the duty of convoking a.id consulting the 
PEOPLE in its totality— all that possess the title of man, the rights of a citizen." 

When such was the declaration of the great popular leader, and we congratulate 
the people of France on the adoption of such a government, and while the Presi- 
dent in his message called that government a republic, why should not Congress 
say, with Lamartine, that ever thing which possesses the form of humanity ought 
to^be a citizen? The decrees of the Provisional Government have been sent to the 
Government of the United States, and the President has transmitted them to Con- 
gress. Amon<^ them is one which promises instant freedom to three hundred tnousand 
down-trodden" human beings in the French colonies. Why, then, in congratulating 
France on Avhat she has achieved, must we stint our praise so as to withhold all 
commendation on this reform also? Why, at such a moment, when the glad tones 
of liberty to 300,000 fellow creatures are sounding to the islands of the Caribbean 
Sea, may not one voice in this Hall, dedicated to liberty itself, sweU the shout that 
^oes up to Heaven in thankfulness and rejoicing? , 

The gentleman from Virginia has not merely denounced me for proposing this 
amendment at that time, but he alleges that it contains a declaration which is an in- 
sult and a libel upon half the States in this Union ; and I perceived that m the next 
morning's Union, the Government Editor joins in the gentleman's denunciations, 
and blows his penny whistle in full chorus. Yes; the editor of the organ expresses 
his " disjTust" at my having oflered the amendment. I have no doubt that he teels 
-all that dTsgust and dissatisfaction which he ex-presses. I should have expected it 
from him— and the abuse of the one, and the denunciation of the other, does not sur- 
prise me. Both are in most excellent accordance with that spirit which, m the 
Senate Chamber of Virginia, induced that body to refuse to join in the general 
manifestation of regret and respect which the rest of the naUon had v^ttered upou 



the occasion of the death of Mr. Adams. The two proceedings are in the same 
spirit. It was because that distinguished statesman, while alive, had been the con- 
stant and unflinching champion of human rights ; because in this Hall he had dared 
ever to stand up against the encroaching power of the slave interest in this Govern- 
ment, that a party majority in the Senate of Virginia had refused to join in the uni- 
versal demonstrations of feeling, which, so much to the honor of our people, spread 
over every other part of the land. 

But, am I to be silenced here ? Am I to be prevented from speaking out my sen- 
timents as a freeman, and the representative of freemen, lest I may perchance bring 
upon me the resentment of the gentleman from Virginia, or the abuse of the Govern- 
ment organ ? Attho very moment when we are proposing to congratulate the peo- 
ple of France on having overturned the throne of .Louis Philippe precisely because 
he had attempted to put down, by military forcfe, the liberty of speech — to put a 
padlock- on the lips of the Representatives of the people, and to prevent the people 
themselves from discussing the rights of man ; at the same moment an attempt of a 
kindred sort is made in the House oT" Representatives of this Republic ! The gentleman 
from Virginia greatly mistakes the people of that part of the Union which I represent, if 
he expec'ts, that, while they attempt no interference with the gentleman, his people, 
or their domestic institutions, they can be frowned into silence upon a subject which 
so der^ply interests them as this. .They have a right to sympathize, and they do 
svm})athize with the French people in all their eiForts to elevate down-trodden hu- 
manity to its lost rights.' And in saying this I believe myself to be the exponent 
of the true American feeling. As an AmeriGan -Representative, I stand upon this 
floor to announce to the world \\»hat the American people think and feel upon this 
subject. 1 believe that they fraternize with M. I^amartine in the republican spirit 
which he has infused into the early decrees of .the Provisional Government, and in 
that one which looks to the emancipation of slaves ui.the colonies as sincerely as 
the rest. And, believing so, I am not afraid to say so. 

In what I have done, I have not only manifested my own feelings and those of 
mv constituents, but there is a gentleman, high in the confidence of the present Ad- 
ministration, the exponent of its policy and principles at the Court of St. James, who 
is at this moment, undoubtedly, fully sympathizing and fraternizing with Lamartine in 
all that had been done in France with reference to slavery. He was placed at the 
Court of the greatest Power of Europe M'ith a full knowledge of his sentiments on 
this subject, because he had solemnly and publicly avowed them. In 1834, Mr. 
Bancroft, the present Minister to England and late Secretary of the Navy, was pro- 
posed as a candidate for Congress in the district which I now represent, and he put 
forth a printed address to the people announcing the principles which would govern 
his action, f read a short extract from that address to show what was then the 
Democratic doctrine, and that the i)rinciple of my amendment is fully accorded 
in by the accredited plenipotentiary of Mr. Polk's administration : 

" If further ^reat reforms in society are expected, they must come from tlic people. Slaves are 
capita! ; the slaveholder is a capitali.st. Free labor will be the first to demand the abolition of slavery; 
capital will be the last to concede it. We would not nilerfcre with the domestic reg-ulations of New- 
Orleans or of Aliriers; but we may demand the instant abolition of the slave trade in the District ^f 
Columbia, and should assist free labor to recover its rights in the Caniuvl of the country." 

Here is a declaration of principles that comes fully up to any which I have avowed; 
and can it be doubted that this Democratic functionary is even now shaking 
hands with Lamartine, and thanking him in the name of free labor, in the name of 
liberty and democracy, for this jjledge to abolish slavery in the colonies ? 

Here is an exposition of the Democratic faith, made by a most uiu]uestionable 
Democrat, who now represents this country at the Court of London! And while it 
is proposed to congratulate France; on having overturned her monarchical Govern- 
ment, 1 claim the right, which our minister is probably exercising, to congratulate 
her on her j)romise to emancipate her slaves. 

The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. IIilliaru) has said tliat he regretted the in- 



troduction of this topic, because there was a deep feeling concerning it at one end 
of the Union. It might be, and probably was so. But I can tell that gentleman 
there is quite as much and quite as intense a feeling at the other end. Slavery 
has manifested itself in the Federal Legislature ever since the organization of our 
Government, and its influence upon national policy has created a feeling at the North 
that is quite as much to be regarded as the apprehensions of the South; and gen- 
tlemen should look to it. 

But the gentleman from Virginia denounces my amendment as an "insult" and a 
"hbel" upon half the republican States in the Union! In what respect is it a libel, I 
desire to ask, to declare that the achievements of the inalienable rights of man is a re- 
publican principle ? Was it a libel, when in 1776 George WythCj Richard Henry Lee, 
Thomas Jefferson, and other Virginia "statesmen, joined with the patriots of all the 
States, and in the most solemn document ever penned by human hand, declared to 
the world that " all men are created" eq\ial ; that they are endowed "by their Creator 
with certain inalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty,, and the pursuit of 
happiness ?" War. that a libel and an insult ? Or have the inalienable rights of man 
so changed, that all men are not now created equal ? 

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr„ JIaskell) who also condemned my amend- 
ment, declared that he .believed that the black man was created for the use of the 
white man ! That may be, and probably is, the. belief of the gentleman from Virgi- 
nia. But it was not the doctrine of Virginia's favorite sous in 177G., My amend- 
ment, then, borrows the spirit, if .not th/e e:xact language, of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence ; and that is thus denounced as a libel ! 

Again, was it an insult ^nd & libel, when, in 17S7, Congress in its well known 
ordinance, decreed thg,t in the Northwestern Territory " there should be neither 
slavery, nor involuntary servitude q^^cept for crime ?" My amendment is in these 
precise words ; and while it^has borrowed its spirit from the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, it has borrawed its language from an ordinance of this Government which 
has existed for more thsn half a century ! Was that a libel upon the republican 
States of the South ? Why — Virginia herself assented to it. Mr. Jefferson was 
upon the committee who drew it up, and recommended it ; and it is maintained by 
many that he is entitled to the honor of its authorship. And yet, when I propose 
to express our gratification that France promises to do, for a portion of her territories, 
the same thing which the statesmen of our own country did for a portion of ours in 
1787, I am denounced as insulting republican States ! 

The gentleman, while speaking of this ordinance, said that Congress had no 
power to enact it; that it was a "nullity." I am not now about to go into a discussion 
as to the constitutional power of Congress to restrict slavery from our territories, as 
there will soon come up a more convenient and appropriate occasion; but will con- 
tent myself with saying, that I do not accede to the authority of the opinion of that 
gentleman. But, whatever is theoretically the character of that ordinance, prac- 
tically, at least, it has been no nullity, but has been in full operation in all that region 
for half a century. When it was enacted, the Northwestern Territory Avas a vast, 
magnificent, and almost unbroken wilderness. It now blossom.s like the rose ! 
Where the savage had nearly uncontrolled sway, republican States have groAvn up. 
By the fides of its mighty rivers has set down a population sufficient for an empire; 
and which bids fair to hold in its hands the sceptre and the destinies of this Union \ 
Under the genial influence of the ordinance of '87 this has occurred. How has it 
been with Virginia during the same space of time .? When that ordinance was en- 
acted she was a century old; and how stands, in comparison, that venerable State 
at this day.? Separated only by the riband of water that flows in the channel of 
Ohio, and with a climate and soil very similar, what a contrast presents itself! And 
yet, the gentleman from Virginia, standing upon his bank of that river, casting his eye 
over the wonderful scene on the other side, and looking back through the history of 
its rise and progress, gravely asserts that the ordinance of '87 is a "nullity !" Sir, 
if it had been possible^ at the time of the passage of that ordinance, that its provisions 



8 

should have been extended over Virginia — to have rid her of a slave population 
which has been only a blight upon her industry — and to have placed her in this re- 
spect on the same footing with the Northwestern States, her progress might have 
been as rapid. Look at her natural advantages — superior in many respects to theirs. 
With a f-'oil unsurpassed for richness and fertility; with a genial climate; with min- 
eral wealth piled mountain high; her borders washed by th^Atlantic, and penetrated 
by rivers fitted to bear navies — what might she not have been at this moment? Sir, 
I have nq desire to speak disrespectfully or unkind!}^ of Virginia. The gentleman 
himself has included her among the republican States upon whom, he says, I have 
uttered a libel. I do not deny her to be a republican State; nor have I any wish 
to interfere with her domestic arrangements in any way. She may, if she so please, 
connect the right of suffrage with the ownership of the soil — she may cherish slavery 
as a blessing, if she chooses so to esteem it — without interference from me; but I 
can not be prevented from running ouf a comparison between her and her neighbor- 
ing free States, when, challenged to it by such remarks as have fallen from the gen- 
tleman from that State. And yet, I must say, that I do not accept the gentleman, 
in the manner and feelings Avhich he has manifested here, as the true exponent of 
the people of that State. I do not bellev|«tliat he fairly* represents them. For, 
while Virginia is entitled to insist upon a respect for her own rights, neither wisdom 
or justice will dictate to her an interference with the rights of Representatives of 
other States on this floor to rejoice at the emancipation of slaves in a distant part of 
the globe; nor to charge them, for so ddlng, with a disposition to encourage revolt 
arid massacre in our own land. 

But, to return to the charge of having offej-ed a libellous amendment, let me ask, 
in addition to the Declaration of Independence and the ordinance of '87, to which I 
have referred, was it an insult and a libel when Congress, in 1804, enacted a restric- 
tion upon the introduction of slaves into the Louisiana Territory ? Was it an insult 
and a libel when, in 1S'20, Congress put the very words of. my amendment into the 
act admitting Missouri into this Union ? Was it so when they were put into the 
joint resolutions for the admission of Texas ? Was it so when the last Democratic 
House of Representatives put them into the Oregon hill, and the Three Million bill? 
All these successive acts- of Congress are equally liable to the accusation, that they 
were insulting to the republican States of the South. And will it be so, let me ask 
most emphatically, when we shall be called upon to enact fundamental laws for the 
new territories which it is suj)posed we are about to strip from Mexico ? Shall we 
then be denounced as libellers, when we insist upon putting the guaranty of freedom 
into the laws for the half dozen new States that are coming ? The gentleman and 
his friends have forced this country into a war for the purpose of acquiring territory, 
and which seems likely to end in such an acquisition, and Congress will be called 
upon to make laws for it. Does he suppose that the people of the free States will 
be silent upon that occasion ? If so, he is greatly in error. He will find them, I 
hope to a man, ready to take and maintain their stand. We have resisted the war, 
but it has been forced upon us. We have resisted the acquisition of territory, but 
it seems likely to be forced upon us. But when it shall be attempted to go farther, 
and demanded that we shall be content that slavery shall exist in the new States as a 
basis of representation, and an element of political power in the Ihilon — thus to in- 
sure an accession to the predominance of the slaveholdmg power — we will do all that 
we constitutionally can do to resist it. I have nothing to do with slavery as it exists 
within the limits of the old States. For myself, I am content to await tlie event — 
when it will come, or how, I pretend not to say or sec — clouds and darkness rest 
upon tin; ])ros])ect — but that it will come, under the providence of (Jod, I can not 
doubt; I am content to wait foi- the day of universal emancipation. But it shall not 
be brought about by any unconstitutional act of mine. I have a right to speak and 
speak freely my sentiments of the institution; and this I shall do upon all suitable 
occasions, and at all proper times. And I cannot impress it too strongly upon the 
House, so that all may be assured of it, and be pre[>arcd for it, that the iree States 



of the North vnll resist the extension of slavery. As a domestic institution, exist- 
ing within the old States, they cannot touch it. L^t the South keep it, and enjoy 
it, if indeed enjoyment it is; let them suffer under it, as I believe they do; the North 
has no power over it. But when it shall be attempted to bring into the Federal Leg- 
islature, new Senators and new Representatives, upon the basis of slave property, 
.yve certainly will interpqse every measure and mode of constitutional resistance. Sir, 
the consummation of such a scheme would change our entire Government. It would 
repeal, or rather revolutionize our Constitution; it would make a new Constitution — 
a new Union. Against such attempts, at the risk of the high displeasure of the 
-gentleman from Virginia, at the risk of being insulting and libellous to the State he 
represents, we shall most assuredly take our stand. • 

Sir, I am not an ultraist, nor have I indulged or expressed sectional opinions or 
feelings. I admit that we have men at the North who go to ruinous extremes upon 
these subjects — men, as they are sometimes called, of one idea; and so, sir, there 
are quite as many who go the opposite extreme at the South. There are ultra men 
on both sides of Mason's and Dixon's line, and I cfm st!arcely say which are the 
most mischievous. It is not of those that I have been speaking. I speak for the 
great mass of the sober-*iinded, refleG^tipg, far-seeing, and foreseeing people of the 
Northern free States, who wiU take tlie stand that I have indicated.. They are con- 
tent to stand by the Constitution as it was formed, and as it is. The element of 
slavery is there; and although we -deeply regret that it is there, and wish that it 
were otherwise, yet we fear that the attertipt to take it out would greatly endanger, 
if not entirely destroy the existence of the whole fabric. There let it stand, until 
God in his Providence shall move the Jiearts of the people to blot it out. But gen- 
tlemen who, in the spirit of progressive Democracy, desire to make nev/ slave 
States, and new Senators, and new Representatives, based upon slavery, cannot, 
with the least show of reason, expect Northern men to stand quietly by and see it 
done without an eifort .to resist it. If they do, they will find themselves wofully 
deceived. 

Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong the debate upon this point. I have 
given the reasons which induced me to offer the amendment which has been the 
subject of so much censure in the House. In the remarks which I have felt it my 
duty to make in reply to the gentleman from Virginia, I have taken the liberty to 
speak freely — as freely as the gentleman has done before me. I indeed thought that 
the gentleman's manner was somevv^hat supercilious and offensive; but I entertain no 
resentment, and far less shall I harbor any enmity towards him. I concede to him 
the same rights which I claim for myself, and shall take no offence at their free ex- 
ercise. 

But there is another topic which formed a part of the gentleman's speech to which 
I desire to ask the attention of the House for a few moments only, and then I will 
yield the floor for the gentleman's reply. The gentleman, to show what a terrible 
condition of things would ensue if the decrees, of the French Provisional Govern- 
ment, for emancipation should be carried out, referred us to the history of the in- 
surrection in St. Domingo during the first revolution. I quote his words: 

" Mr. Bayly said he was not mistaken; he spoke from the book. The House knew very well that 
he seldom addressed it, and, when he did, that he was not in the habit of speaking of what he had 
not looked into, or of making assertions without knowing on what they were founded. But he 
would give the professed philanthropist from Ohio one instance — a horrible instance it wns — where 
this process of universal emancipation was done at a blow, with a single dash of the pen ; it was the 
well-known case of St. Domingo. * * * Liberate three hundred thousand negroes by a stroke 
of the pen ! Who did not know that it could not be done but through scenes of carnage and horror 
from which humanity recoiled!" 

Now, sir, it will be seen that the gentleman has charged that the emancipation 
by the French Government of the slaves in the islands of the Caribbean Sea had 
produced the terrific results of slaughter and rapine and crime, which, we all knew, 
had marked that time. Notwithstanding the gentleman told the House that he spoke 
from the book, and made no assertions without knowing on what theywere founded^ 



10 

yet in this respect he was false in his history. Every reader of the history of the times 
knew that those revolts were^the result, not of emancipation by the French Gov- 
ernment, but of other causes. The only emancipation prior to 1793, by the French 
Government, of the slaves in those islands, was what was contained in the declara- 
tion of the National Assembly of the 20th August, 1789. At that time the Na- 
tional Assembly declared, in the words of our own Declaration of Independence, 
that "all men are born, and are to continue, free and equal as to their rights." 
Prior to any of these insurrections in the West India islands, no other emancipation 
of any kind than what was contained in that declaration Avas ever enacted or de- 
clared by the National Assembly. That declaration attracted the attention of the 
population of those islands, in all- its extent, and the principles of it induced the 
mulatto race, which was a distinct race from either the whites or the negro slaves, 
to attempt to achieve their own natural and political rights. There were at that 
time three distinct rases in the West India islands: in the first place, the white 
planters, who Avere the owners of slaves; then the mulattoes, who were also men 
of large property, some erf" them men of education, and the owners of slaves; and, 
lastly, the African negro slave caste. The first disturbances grew out of the attempt 
of the mulattoes to vindicate for themselvej^he principles contained in the declara- 
tion of the 20th August, 1789. The failui^ of the National Assembly of France 
to carr}^ out in practice the principle which they had thus declared, was the primary 
cause of the insurrection tliat ensued. It was that Avbich led to open war, bitter 
feuds between the Avhite planter and the mulattoes; and it was not until they had 
been continued for some time that the staves, partaking of the general ferment, at- 
tempted insurrection for the purpose of achieving their own freedom. Then it was 
that the terrible scenes which have been described were enacted. But the act of 
the French Government, which emancipated slavery, did not take place until long 
after, in 1793. 

Mr. Bayly, (in his seat.) I know it did not. 

Mr. AsHMUN. Therefore, when the gentleman from Virginia asserted that these 
scenes of carnage, bloodshed, and pillage, were the result of an act of emancipa- 
tion such as had now been proposed, he spoke without the book, and without any 
authority of history. 



After Mr. Ashmtin concluded, Mr. Bayi.y again spoke in a strain similar to that of his first speech. 

On the next day, Tuesday, May Uth, Mr. Palfry moved a reconsideration of the vote by which 
the Senote resolutions iiad passed; and Mr. Bayly again spoke, and took occasion to make another 
extended reply, in which, among other things, he charged the State of .Massachusetts with having 
Tiolated the Constitution of the United States by its law forbidding State magistrates to assist in the 
recapture of fugitive slaves. After he had finished, Mr. Ashmun endeavored to obtain the floor, but 
it was given to Mr. Kaufman, of Texas, who moved to lay the motion for reconsideration on the 
table. 

Mr. AsHML'.v apjiealed to the courtesy of Mr Kaufiiam to withdraw that motion, and give him an 
opportunity to rcj/ly. 

Mr. Kaufman, after some conversation, assented ; and 

Mr. AsHMLN was proceeding to address the House, when — 

Mr. McLane rose to a point of order. 

After an explanation from the Speaker, who decided that Mr. .\siimun liad the floor, the gentleman 
from Texas having witlidrawn his motion to lay on the table, Mr. McLane did not press his point of 
order. ' 

Mr. AsHMUN again essayed to address the flousc, l)ut was interrupted by — 

Mr. Sawvkk, who said the House was not now in Committee of the Whole on the state of the 
Union, but was considering a motion to reconsider the vote of yesterday giving a vole of thanks to 
France, (laughter.) The gentlemen, however, who took part in this debate, were discussing the 
question of aboliiion, which appeared to him to be irrelevant to the subject under consideration. He 
asked the Chair to decide if the debate which had been going on this morning was or was not in order.' 

The Speaker replied that the gentleman from Ohio was too late in his objection in regard to those 
gentlemen who had already spoken, to whose nmiarks the gentleman from Alassachusctts, (Mr. .\sh- 
MaN,) as the Chair underst)od, was about to reply. The ('hair, however, remarked, that the general 
question involved the subject of slavery in the JVench West India islands, and thus the question to 
which the gentleman from Ohio had alluded came up. The Chair, however, was ready to admit, that 
Ahe debate had assumed a wide range, which the Chair did not now feci at liberty to interrupt, inas- 
much as it had been continued so long by general consent. 



11 

Mr. Meade inquired if the motion to lay on the table was debatable. 

The Speaker replied that a motion to lay on the table was not debatable, but there was no such 
motion pending. 

Mr. AsHMUN then said : If gentlemen on the other side of the House have ex- 
hausted all their ingenuity in vainly trying to silence me, I will proceed; pausing, 
however, to make my acknowledgments to the gentleman from Texas, for the cour- 
tesy which, on this, as upon all other occasions since he has been a member on this 
floor, he has manifested. Nor do I mean to make any complaint against the gen- 
tleman from Maryland (Mr. McLane) for raising his points of order, but will pro- 
ceed directly to the matter in hand. 

Mr. Speaker: The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bayly) has now occupied the 
attention of the House in three prolonged harangues. Yes, for three several mortal 
hours, in three several days, he has fretted himself upon this stage; although I feel 
bound to say that, so far as I can judge, he ha#fretted no one dse. And notwithstand- 
ing all the roughness of manner, and the overbearing and superciUous demeanor which 
that gentleman has upon these occasions, «ts well as upon (Others towards other mem- 
bers of this House, manifested towards me, I am free to say that I cherish no un- 
pleasant feeling towards him; for 1 kn^ not but -all this may be the result of acci- 
dental circumstances, growing out of tllte manner of his life, and that it is a habit 
which he has unconsciously acquired from living among those wl]om he was born 
to command. He has indulged in a tone, and an apparent temper — I say apparent 
temper, for I may have mistaken the gentleman's real feehngs after all — a tone, and 
an apparent temper, which are entirely unsuited to this Hall. Sir, what brought 
this state of feeling into this House? Who began this exciting debate? Who in- 
troduced the personalities which have marked it? Did not the gentleman from 
Virginia, on a simple proposition of mine to express our satisfaction at the -prospect 
of emancipation in the French colonies, and before I had said one word, rise in his 
place, and pour upon me a series of denunciations in a manner, which, on yesterday, 
I characterized as more fitting his plantation than this Hall of equals. This I did 
yesterday, and the House will remember whether or not I repelled the attack which 
he had made upon me. Yet the gentleman, to-day, stands up here, and with that 
audacity of manner which he sometimes assumes, intimates that I passed by him to 
attack his venerable friend, the editor of the Union ! Sir, there is nothing either in 
the character or the standing of the gentleman from Virginia that can lead me to 
avoid him, or that can, under any circumstances, deter me from speaking of him in 
such terms as I think he deserves. I am that gentleman's equal on this floor, and 
no more; — and no less; and I can assure him that, on no occasion, shall I submit, in 
silence, to such remarks as have fallen from him. I did, indeed, comment upon the 
editorial article of Mr. Ritchie and the speech of the gentleman from Virginia at 
the same time; and it was because both had seen fit to indulge in personality. I did 
it, also, because they both happened to represent the same State, and seemed to be 
animated by the same spirit; the spirit which ruled in the Senate Chamber of Vir- 
ginia, when an accidental partisan majority of that body refused to join their fellow- 
citizens in the adoption of resolutions expressive of the pubUc feeling upon the occa- 
sion of the death of Mr. Adams. I spoke of this yesterday, and yet the gentleman 
now — as if he believed it himself, and wished to have the House and country believe 
it — charges that I had avoided him, who was here to reply, and had attacked Mr. 
Ritchie who was not ! 

Mr. Bayly here said, he had not said that the gentleman from Massachusetts had 
avoided him to attack Mr. Ritchie; but he said that the gentleman from Massachu- 
setts might have confined his remarks to him, and not extended them to a gentle- 
man who had not the privilege of a reply. 

Mr. AsHMUX. The gentleman from Virginia may now put his language m that 
form, and I am content to accept it; but he would not, I apprehend, be safe to take 
the testimony of those around him as to what he actually did say. I repeat, how- 
ever, that I accept his explanation. The gentleman now says that I attacked Mr. 



12 

Eitchie, who had not the right of reply ! Why, sir, I see Mr. Ritchie here at this 
moment, in a member's seat, where, in violation of the rules of the House, he was 
when he wrote the abusive article in question ! And he has a press at his com- 
mand, which is more potential than any voice in this Hall, and which he uses with- 
out any very great scruple as to the feelings of members. I do not desire to attempt 
to restrict him in the exercise of his rights as an editor, but I claim for myself the free 
exercise of my own. That editor has denounced me in the Government paper, and 
through the same medium he can reply to me; it is idle, therefore, for the gentle- 
man to attempt to produce the impression that I noticed Mr. Ritchie because he 
■could not reply. 

Mr. BayLy denied that he had isaid the gentleman from Massachusetts had attack- 
ed the editor of the Union bccau.^c he had not an opportunity to reply. He had re- 
marked that the gentleman from Mass^husetts had attacked the editor of the Union, 
who had not the privilege to reply on This floor, while he (Mr. B.) had, and that it 
would have been quite as prope-r if the- gentleman from Massachusetts had confined 
his remarks to himself, who had spokeit quite as pointedly of him as Mr. Ritchie 
had. 

Mr. AsHMUN. Why, then, was the reir^afk made at all, if not for the purpose of 
producing the impression that I had attacked Mr. Ritchie because he liad no oppor- 
tunity to reply ? But it is not for the gentleman from Virginia to dictate to me to 
whom I shall confine or extend my remarks; upon that subject I shall exercise my 
own judgment. When I saw those characteristic, remarks in the Union — remarks 
breathing the same spirit as those delivered by the gentleman on this floor, and 
avowed by the editor to have bfeen written at a seat in this Plouse, and probably at 
the very moment when the gentleman was speaking — I had no difliculty in discover- 
ing the affiliation of feeling between them, and no hesitation in coupling them to- 
gether in the rebuke which I saw fit to administer. Sir, I find no fault — it is not in 
my heart to do so — with the honied commendation which the gentleman from Vir- 
ginia occasionally bestows upon his venerable friend, the editor of the Union; nor 
yet with that editor in throwing it back through the columns of his paper, as he 
does tiiis morning, upon the ^'■distmguished oruior of Virginia!''' If they, or either 
of them, find any comfort, consolation, or enjoyment, in this expression of mutual 
commendation and admiration, I shall certainly not attempt to disturb, in the slight- 
est degree, the delightful harmony that just now seems to exist between them. 
How long that state of feeling had existed, or what they have said of each other in 
former times, others know better than myself. 

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, when the gentleman took the floor, he remarked that 
he should proceed at once to reply to a speech which I had taken a week to concoct, 
when J had had an opportunity to speak, under similar circumstances to his own, 
on the day when this debate first sprung up. If he had not said this with an 
evident air of self-satisfaction, it would not have been worthy a passing notice; but 
as it is in effect an entire misrepresentation, I desire to expose it. Sir, the circum- 
stances under which I obtained the floor, on the first day of this debate, are well 
known to every member of this House, and to none better than the gentleman him- 
self. It Avas just at nightfall, after a discussion of several hours, and there was a 
manifest reluctance on all sides of the House that I should go on to make my reply 
at that time. I declared my readiness to proceed at once, but consented to acqui- 
esce in the general sense of the House, and accordingly moved the adjournment 
which took place. The gentleman knew^, when he made his assertion to-day, that 
from that moment I have been anxious to get an opportunity to reply to his attack. 
He knows that, in conversation in this Hall on the morning after it, I expressed to him 
my regret that he was not in the House at the opening of the sitting, as 1 should 
have then moved to take up the subject so as to answer him, and that I then told 
him I !-hould seize the earliest opportunity to do it. He knows, moreover, that I 
did, during the week, join the ettbrts of others to call up the resolutions, but that 
under the rules it could not be done; and that I did, in fact, speak at the very ear- 



13 ■ , 

liest moment when it was in order to do so. And yet, knowing all this full well^ 
he comes here and tells the House, with that most manifest feeling of superiority ia 
which he is so much accustomed to be enwrapped, that he was ready to reply to a 
speech which it had taken me a we^k to prepare ! Surely the distinguished o-entle- 
man from Virginia derives his satisfaction from small sources ! 

The gentleman from Virginia has taken advantage of the renewal of the debate 
to-day by others, to renew, for the third time, his attack upon me. It seems that 
he is not content with his exhibition of yesterday. His impromptu reply, of which 
he spoke so boastfully, seems not to have satisfied his subsequent reflections; and 
after sleeping, and I hope sleeping soundly, upon my speech of yesterday, he finds 
it necessary to make another reply_ to-day; and I know not but he will find it quite 
as necessary to make another when^I s'hal] have-sat down.* He has probably been 
encouraged to this renewal of the contest, by the eulogy upon his procee'dino-s which 
appeared in the Government paper of this raju-ning, in which his venerable friend 
announces to the admiring democracy, that "the distinguished Virginia orator used 
up the gentleman from Massachusetts !" ^ir, it would not be graceful in me to 
deny the truthfulness of this account ! It would show a want of magnanimity which 
I hope does not belong to me. But was it magnanimous, let me ask, was it gene- 
rous in the gentleman himself thus to cCime again upon the field and strike at a pros- 
trate, fallen foe; Falstaff-like, thus to givelo the dead his valorous thrusts, and 
"thrice to slay the slain?" Is that the much vaunted Virginia chivalry ? Nay, let 
me ask in all seriousness, is the spirit which the gentleman has exhibited through- 
out the whole of this discussion, the true Virginia .spirit, of w^hich he proclaimed 
himself to be the exponent ?• I hope not; I believe ijot. I do not believe that there 
is another gentleman from that State, upon this floor, who would take the course 
which he has done; I trust there is not another one in the State. 

But the gentleman made another point in this speech w^hich he told us he should 
write out for the benefit of his constituents, who, if they read at full length all he 
has said, will be compelled to throw aside their wwTweroM.? newspapers. t He charged 
rne with having denied that he was the true exponent of Virginia opinions. Sir, I 
did not say so, nor intend to say so. I have no kind of doubt that some of the ex- 
treme opinions which that gentleman holds upon the subject of slavery are very 
generally held in Virginia. It would be very strange if it were not the case w^herever 
the people cling to that institution, and I have not intended to say otherwise. What 
I intended to say w^as, that the gentleman w^as not, in my judgment, the true expo- 
nent of the spirit of Virginia, of the feehngs of the men of that State, in his manner 
and tone on this floor, and he certainly is not when he justifies or apologizes for the 
conduct of the Senate of that State on the occasion of the death of Mr. Adams. 
The resolutions which the Senate refused to pass, as I am informed, passed the 
popular branch of the Legislature unanimously. I appeal, then, to the record. The 
Representatives of the people spoke the feelings of the people; but the accidental 
party majority of the aristocratic branch refused to concur. And I say, then, that 
when the gentleman stands here as the apologist for their conduct, he does not truly 
or faithfully represent the feelings of Virginia. 

I have now, Mr. Speaker, said all that I desire to say in reply to the renew^ed per- 
sonalties of the gentleman from Virginia. It has been done in the utmost good humor, 
and, I trust, with a suitable regard to the proprieties of this Hall. 

* Which he did. 

t Since this remark was made I have seen, in the National Intelligencer, a letter from Accomac, Va., 
giving a very interesting account of that region ; and describing, very truly, I have no doubt, the kind 
manner in which the slaves are there treated. The writer then says' as follows : 

"And now, with regard to those traits which the Accomacians possess in common. In relio-ion 
they are Methodists and Baptists, and in politics they belong to the rank and file of the unterrTfied 
Democracy. Those who are at all educated are highly educated ; but of the twenty-five thousand 
souls who inhabit the peninsula, I suppose that not more than one thousand could distin'^uish the dif- 
ference between the English and the Chippewa alphabet, in the two counties of Accoma'c and North- 
ampton the idea of even a weekly newspaper was never dreamed of." 



14 

There are one or two other subjects, however, which, before I conclude, require 
a passing notice. I allude to the charge which the gentleman made against Massa- 
chusetts with so much confidence, and urged with thatoracular manner which gener- 
ally characterizes his arguments in this House. The gentleman promised in his 
"Written speech to embody and extend his argument upon this point; but I cannot 
but have some doubt whether, upon reflection and examination of authorities, he will 
not deem it so untenable as to induce him to change his mind. 

Sir, I had said that the free States of the north, and Massachusetts, as faithfully 
as any, had always manifested an unshaken devotion to the Constitution of the 
United States, and a dispositippi to stand by it as it is. The gentleman from Virginia 
has taken issue upon that assertion, and has undertaken to show a case in which he 
says that Massachusetts has in her Legislature violated the principles of the Consti- 
tution. He quotes to us the 3d clause of the 2d section of the 4th article of the Con- 
stitution, which is. as fqllows: f" 

" No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, 
shall, in consequence of any law or reo^ulation th(#ein, be discharged from such service or labor, but 
shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." 

He then quotes the 3d section of the acit.ef Congress of 1793, as follows: 

"Sec. 3. And be itfurtlur enackd, That when a person held to labor in any of the United States, or 
in either of the territories on the northwest or soutli of the river Ohio, under the laws tliereof, should 
escape into any other of the said States or Territory., the person to whom such labor or service may 
be due, his agent or attorney, is hereby empowered" to seize or arrest sucli fugitive from labor, and to 
take him or her betbre any judge of the circuit or district courts of the United States, residing or being 
within the State, cr before any magistrate of a county, city, or toicn corporate iclicrein sucU seizure or arrest 
sliould be made, and upon proof, to the satibfaclion rf such judge or magisli-ate, either by oi-al testimony or 
affidavit taken before, and certified by, a magistrate of any such State or Territory, that tlie person so 
seized or arrested doth, under the laws of the State or Territory from which he or she fled, owe ser- 
vice or labor to the person claiming him or her, it should be the duty of such judge or magistrate to 
give a certificate thereof to such claimant, his agent or attorney, which should be sufficient warrant 
for removing the said fugitive from labor to the Slate or Territory from which he or she fled."' 

The gentleman then avers that this law made it the duti/ of State magistrates to 
assist in the capture of fugitive slaves, and that JNIassachusetts had within a few 
years passed an act forbidding her magistrates to use their oflices for that purpose. 
This is his charge, and now let us see how he has sustained it. Where, in the 
section of the law referred to, was there any requirement that a State magistrate 
should act at all.'' If, indeed, he consents to act, if he is willing to be the instru- 
ment of the slave owner, and hears the proof, and is satisfied that the person brought 
before him is a slave, then, to be sure, it is his duty to decide, and to give the ne- 
cessary certificate. But that is not the point. The gentleman asserted that they 
are required by the law to take cognizance of the question, and that it was that re- 
quirement of tlie law of Congress which Massachusetts had nuUified. Now, what 
has Massachusetts in fact d^ne.'' She has done no more than to say that Congress 
has no power to compel her local magistrates to do ani/ i/ring; that the National Gov- 
ernment has no control whatever over the officers of the State government: and that 
she forbids her own officers from acting t.., the officers of the National Government 
for the purpose of capturing slaves. The gentleman comes from a State that is an 
extreme stickler for State rights, that passed the resolutions of '9<S; and yet he 
stands up here, and argues that Congress has power to compel State officers to exe- 
cute the laws of Congress, and that a State law forbidding it is a violation of the 
Constitution! He contends that Congress has the power io compel State magistrates 
to do tliis; for il' there is a power to require the performance of such a duty, there is 
also a correlative power to punish for a refusal to perform. The Constitution only 
stipulates that the slaves shall be delivered up; that is, that the States shall not in- 
terfere with the physical ctlbrt of the slaveholder to recapture his slave. But Con- 
gress has no right to impose upon any, except its own officers, the execution of its 
laws. If Congress desires to establish a corps of officers in the several States whose 
^iuty may be to aid in this business, it may do it. Let gentlemen proj)ose such a 
Acheme if they think it expedient; but I should be glad to hear any jurist of re- 



spectable standing argue that State magistrates are subject to the laws of Congress; 
and I should desire if any gentleman on this floor can point to any provision of the 
Constitution, or to any decision of any respectable court, upon which such an opin- 
ion is founded. 

Mr. INIeade asked the gentleman to yield him the floor, that he might answer the 
question which the gentleman had proposed. 

Mr. AsHMUN yielded the floor accordingly. 

Mr. Meade called the attention of the gentleman from Massachusetts to the 
clause in the Constitution which requires fugitives from justice to be delivered up . 
on the demand oi the Executive of the State from which, they fled. He contended that 
every State was bound to pass the necessary laAvs to carry out this clause of the 
Constitution; and the States were equally bound to pass the necessary laws to exe- 
cute the succeeding clause in refererice to fugitives from labor, which requires that 
the slave "'shall be delivered up on the claimj^i the party to whom such service or 
labor may be due." On whom shall the claim be made, an& who shall dehver up 
the fugitive? The claim in the one case,Jike the demand in the other, shall be 
made on, and the fugitive delivered up by, tlie authorities of the State into which the 
fugitive in both instances goes. The law of Massachusetts, instead of aiding, ob- 
structs the execution of this clause in the- Constitution. 

Mr. AsHMUN. The Supreme Court of the United States has sufficiently answer- 
ed the questions of the gentleman. It has decided that'the law of Congress "exe- 
cutes itself," and that no State legislation is necessary to carry it into efl'ect, and 
that a State has no power to legislate in aid of the pursuer of fugitives; but that, on 
the contrary, it may prohibit its officers from acting in their official capacities upon 
the subject. I refer to the case of Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, in the 16th volume of 
Peters' Reports, and I quote the following extracts from the decision in that case. 
The Court say: 

" It might be ^-ell deemed an unconstitutional power of interpretation to insist that the States are 
bound to^irovide means to carry into effect the duties of tlie National Goi'ernment. On the contrary, 
the natural, if not the necessary, conclusion is, that the National Government is bound, through its 
oicn proper departments, Legislative, Executive, or Judicial, as the case may require, to carry them 
into effect.^' •"* * * « * » ** 

" As to the authority conferred upon State magistrates by the act of 1793, while a difference of 
opinion has existed, and rnay still exist, on the point in different States, whether State magistrates are 
bound to act under it, none is entertained by this court that State magistrates may, if they choose, 
exercise that authority, unless prohibited by Slate legislation.'" 

Nothing can be plainer, then, than that the States are not bound to provide means to 
carry into effect the slave-catching provisions of the General Government; but that, 
on the contrary. State magistrates ''may be prohibited, by State legislation,''^ from 
engaging in the business. Massachusetts has done this. The great kidnapping 
enormities which had been practised, under pretence of reclaiming fugitive slaves, 
called for legislative action, and she exercised the power which the Supreme Court 
had declared belonged to her. What becomes, then, of the unfounded charge that 
she has, in this instance, violated the Constitution? If Congress can thus interfere, 
and compel or demand State officers to execute its laws, to what extent is the doc- 
trine to be carried? Congress has power, under the Constitution, to legislate on the 
subjects o{ the recapture of slaves; but it must execute its powers by its own proper 
agents. It has, in like manner, power to lay taxes and collect the revenues; but 
can it, for a moment, be pretended that it can compel State officers to become its 
collectors? It mi2;ht as well require our sheriffs to be its marshals, or our town 
clerks to be its postmasters. But the gentleman went a little farther with his charge, 
and alleged that the Massachusetts lav»^ had also, in violation of the Constitution, 
provided that the claim of the slave owner should be tried by a jury. I have only 
to say, to this additional evidence of the gentleman's much-vaunted accuracy, that 
the lav/s of Massachusetts do not provide for any suck thing! There is not a word 
upon our statute books that furnishes the slightest foundation for the assertion! 

1 have noticed but briefly this new charge which the gentleman from Virginia 



• 16 j. 

Juire 

has seen fit to make against my State; bat it seems to me that the answer is "com- 
plete. The subject may, however, come up again, under circumstances more favor-* 
able to a full examination of it — when the Oregon bill and the Wilmot Proviso shall 
be under consideration, and when it can be discussed divested of the feeling which 
now surrounds it, and I may perhaps recur to it again. 

Mr. Speaker, I have but one more topic, upon which I wish to dwell for a mo- 
ment before I yield the floor. The gentleman from Virginia has arraigned Massa- 
chusetts for a violation of the Constitution, and charged her with nullification; upon 
what authority, and with what potency of argument, the House now can judge. 
But there is another side to the picture. What has Virginia done? In the same 
article of the Constitution, and at the head of the same section in which the clause 
concerning fugitive slaves is found, stands the following: 

" The citizens of eacli State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the 
several States." 

Now, who has been the most faithful to the Constitution? The citizens of each State 
are those which each State severally chooses to consider as such. Virginia may es- 
tabUsh her own standard of citizenship; so may Michigan, and so may Massachusetts; 
and, accordingly, Massachusetts has given to.^the colored man the rights of citizen- 
ship. She has made him a citizen of her Commonwealth, and brought him within this 
provision of the Constitution. He can go from our ports, armed with the rights and 
privileges ol,' an American citizen, around the world — to France, England, Russia, 
or China, or wherever else a satl can carr}^ him, and protection goes with him. Every- 
where the flag of our nation heralds him, and guards him as an American citizen! 
But, if his voyage brings him into the harbor of the -republican slave States of the 
South, what becomes of this boasted right — the right which the Constitution express- 
ly guarantees to him ? He is instantly seized, and upon no other charge than that 
he is "guilty of a skin not colored like our own," he is summarily throv.'n into prison. 
Let a colored citizen seaman of Massachusetts arrive in a harbor of republican Vir- 
ginia, and the shacldes are ready for him for the crime of complexion ! The laws 
of republican Virginia do this. What, then, becomes of her regard for the Consti- 
tution of the United States? Ha«! the Massachusetts citizen the same "privileges and 
immunities" as the citizen of Virginia within her Hmits or elsewhere? Has he the 
protection of the Constitution; or does Virginia arbitrarily and despotically strip it 
from him ? Has he any rights left ? No, sir. No. On the contrary, when the 
constituted authorities of Massachusetts attempt to restore him to liberty and his 
rights, by a peaceful resort to the judicial tribunals of the country; — when she has 
sent into those republican States, eminent and respectable citizens, to test the legal- 
ity of these imprisonments, and the constitutionality of these laws, mobs are gather- 
ed and set on to acts of violence that are a stain upon history; and a time-honored 
servant of our commonwealth, worthy of its highest honors, who long held a seat 
upon this floor, where he gained the confidence and respect of every body, is com- 
pelled to flee, unattended, except by an accomplished daughter, at the peril of life, 
to seek for themselves, within their own State, that protection whicli the Constitution 
had promised them, but which the republican States of the South denied them! 
Sir, I have at no time any desire to go into contrasts of this kind. But when chal- 
lenged to it by the gentleman from Virginia, he will find that in such a contest there 
are blows to be received, as well as to be given. Sir, there are other dark shades 
upon the pictures, if the veil only be lifted. But, at present, — I forbear. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

llllii. 

011 932 884 5 



00 



011 932 884 6 



*• 



^V 



